Applied Linguistics-2011-Hernández-369-88

8/3/2019 Applied Linguistics-2011-Hernndez-369-88

1/20

Applied Linguistics 2011: 32/4: 369388 Oxford University Press 2011

doi:10.1093/applin/amr004 Advance Access published on 18 February 2011

Cognitive Tools For Successful Branding

LORENA PEREZ HERNANDEZDpto. Filologas Modernas, Universidad de La Rioja, C/ San Jose de Calasanz, s/n 26004

Logrono (La Rioja), Spain

E-mail: [email protected]

This article aims to fill a gap in current studies on the semantics of branding.

Through the analysis of a number of well-known international brand names,

we provide ample evidence supporting the claim that a finite set of cognitive

operations, such as those of domain reduction and expansion, mitigation, and

strengthening, among others, can account for the drawing of inferences on the basis of the cue provided by the brand name. Such conceptual mechanisms

are often randomly and unconsciously used in the process of building a new

brand name. Nevertheless, this article argues that their systematic use results

in (i) an increase in the degree of suggestiveness and semantic richness of

the brand name, (ii) a lower risk of generating negative associations and

connotations, and (iii) higher cognitive economy in the interpretation of

brand names on the part of the potential consumer. In doing so, these cognitive

operations arise as powerful tools for the task of creating safe and successful

brand names.

INTRODUCTION

Successful brands are among a companys most priceless assets. They are

essential in identifying the maker or seller of a product or service and they

result in brand equity (i.e. the value a brand name adds to the product), thus

positioning companies at a vantage point against their competitors (Goedertier

and Mast 2003). As pointed out by Kotler and Amstrong (2001), a brand

comprises a range of diverse elements, including a name, term, sign, symbol,

or design, or a combination of them. This article focuses exclusively on brandnames and attempts to shed some light on how they are created and inter-

preted from a cognitive-linguistic perspective.

Research on the creation and effectiveness of brand names has been mostly

carried out by marketing scholars. Thus, authors such as Keller et al. (1998),

and more recently, Stern (2006) have described the desirable properties of

brand names (i.e. distinctive, suggestive, meaningful, easily recalled, easily

pronounced, etc.). Others have looked into the influence of brand names in

determining perceptions of brand quality and attitudes towards the product

(Srinivasan and Till 2002), their effects on advertising recall (Keller et al. 1998),and the process of name creation itself (Wheeler 2006; Healey 2008).

Nevertheless, despite the inherently verbal nature of brand names, studies

on linguistic aspects of branding are scarce. Vanden Bergh et al. (1987) have

atCentralUniversityLibraryofBucharestonDecember2,2011

http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom
http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/


2/20

dealt with the phonetic, orthographic, morphological, and semantic charac-

teristics of brand names; Bao et al. (2008) have focused on the effects of the

relevance, connotation, and pronunciation of brand names on consumers

brand preference; Klink (2003) has investigated the generation of consistent brand meaning through the integration of brand names and brand

marks; and both Vanden Bergh et al. (1987) and Klink (2000) have analyzed

the role of sound symbolism in the creation of meaningful brand names.1

To the best of our knowledge, however, no research has been done so far

on the specific cognitive mechanisms which guide the inferential processes

triggered by brand names, and which are, to a great extent, responsible

for their final interpretation. As has been made apparent in contemporary

pragmatic-cognitive approaches to language interpretation (Panther and

Thornburg 1998; Ruiz de Mendoza and Pe

rez Herna

ndez 2001; Pe

rezHernandez and Ruiz de Mendoza 2002), this type of inferential activity

is largely constrained by cultural models of social interaction, on the one

hand, and by cognitive mechanisms of meaning generation (i.e. conceptual

metaphors, metonymies, and image-schemas), on the other hand. As

a result, the semantic associations and connotations that arise from those

inferential processes turn out to be, counter to what has traditionally been

claimed (cf. Bach and Harnish 1979; Sperber and Wilson 1995) fairly

predictable.

This article aims to fill a gap in current studies on the semantics of branding.

We contend that a finite set of cognitive operations such as domain reduction,

domain expansion, mitigation, and strengthening, among others, can account for

the drawing of inferences on the basis of the cue provided by the brand name.

Such conceptual mechanisms, which might be used unconsciously, lie on the

basis of the process of building a new brand name. Nevertheless, this article

argues that their systematic use results in (i) an increase in the degree of

suggestiveness and semantic richness of the brand name, (ii) a lower risk of

generating negative associations and connotations, and (iii) higher cognitive

economy in the interpretation of brand names on the part of the potentialconsumer. In so doing, these cognitive operations arise as powerful tools for

the task of successful brand creation since they are common to the tasks of

language production and understanding and should, therefore, be identified by

consumers as used by brand name designers.

The layout of this article is as follows: First, we introduce a set of cogni-

tive operations against the background of a semantically constrained infer-

ential approach to the production and interpretation of brand names;

Secondly, we illustrate the workings of each of these cognitive operations

in relation to the semantic make-up of a number of well-known interna-tional brands, thus highlighting the different ways in which the process of

brand creation can benefit from the activity of each of those cognitive

mechanisms. Finally, we conclude by suggesting some potential lines for

further research.

370 COGNITIVE TOOLS FOR SUCCESSFUL BRANDING



Downloadedfrom


3/20

SEMANTIC CONSTRAINTS ON THE INFERENCE-GENERATINGPOWER OF BRAND NAMES: COGNITIVE OPERATIONS

In this article, we contend that brand names act as (linguistic) cues, which set

off appropriate inferential processes resulting in the generation of relevant and

desirable conceptual associations. Moreover, as shall be made apparent in

the remainder of this article, such inferential processes of meaning generation

can be guided and constrained to a significant degree by means of a set of

cognitive operations. As a result, brand creators will be capable of leading

customers beyond the literal meaning of the brand name in a fairly controlled

manner, minimizing in turn their risk of producing unwanted or inappropriate

associations.

As pointed out by Ruiz de Mendoza and Santibanez (2003), since verbal

messages usually fall short of fully encoding the speakers intentions, inter-preting a message almost invariably requires making inferences as to what the

speaker really meant. Because the linguistic form of brand names is, in most

cases, necessarily brief, their dependence on inferential processes for final in-

terpretation acquires a special relevance. Thus, the act of coding as much

positive information as possible into a single name becomes an art, the art of

branding. In turn, the consumer will be faced with the complex task of draw-

ing the intended inferences on the basis of a necessarily brief and scarcely

explicit cue (i.e. the brand name).

The inferential nature of brand name interpretation represents both a threatand an opportunity for branding professionals. On the one hand, once the

brand name is launched to the market, the potential range of inferences that

consumers can draw from it is somehow beyond the brand creators control, as

is the case with human communication in general (cf. Sperber and Wilson

1995). Unexpected and unfortunate associations are among a branding pro-

fessionals worst nightmares. On the other hand, the fact that brand names,

because of their compact nature, usually depend on inferential processes for

their interpretation offers the brand creator an opportunity to communicate

the most diverse key attributes and activate the most varied and rich concep-tual associations through the use of a single word or compound.

In this connection, our main goal is to provide evidence supporting the fact

that the processes of encoding and decoding brand names do not need to hinge

exclusively on the creativity of branding specialists and the inferential capacity

of potential consumers, respectively. On the contrary, we will show that

both tasks are guided and constrained to a large extent by a limited set of

cognitive operations that apply to the semantic make-up of words and word-

combinations in connection with speakers prior knowledge.2 The use of such

conceptual mechanisms results in the generation of felicitous inferences,which enhance the semantic and evocative power of brands beyond that of

their literal interpretations. These cognitive operations represent structured

procedures for the coining of new brand names whose potential semantic

associations can thus be largely predicted. Therefore, they have the added

L. PEREZ HERNANDEZ 371



Downloadedfrom


4/20

advantage of decreasing the risk of a brand name generating unwanted impli-

cations, a peril which is naturally present in interpretations based on inferen-

tial activity.

The notion of cognitive operation has been central to cognitive linguistic the-ories from their inception in proposals by Lakoff (1987) and Lakoff and

Johnson (1999) on conceptual metaphors and metonymies. More recently,

Ruiz de Mendoza and Pena (2005: 58) have offered a broader and more com-

prehensive definition of cognitive operation as:

[. . .] a mental mechanism whose purpose is to derive a semanticrepresentation from a linguistic expression (or from other symbolicdevice, such as a drawing) in order to make it meaningful in thecontext in which it is to be interpreted.

An exhaustive typology of cognitive operations has been proposed in con-nection to the Lexical-Constructional Modelby Ruiz de Mendoza (2010), based on

previous work by Ruiz de Mendoza and Santibanez (2003), and Ruiz de

Mendoza and Pena (2005).3 These authors distinguish two general categories

of cognitive operations, namely, content and formal operations.

Content operations are lower level conceptual mechanisms used to make in-

ferences on the basis of cues provided by the linguistic expression or the con-

text in which it is produced. They comprise those of domain expansion, domain

reduction, comparison, correlation, mitigation, strengthening, and parametrization. As

contended by Ruiz de Mendoza (2010), content operations are insufficient bythemselves to explain how the meaning derivation process is carried out. A

number of formal higher level mechanisms (i.e. formal cognitive operations) have

been found to act as prerequisites for content operations to be possible at all.

Ruiz de Mendoza and Pena (2005) distinguish four of them, namely, cueing,

abstraction, selection, and integration. As will be shown in detail in the following

section, these formal operations play no direct role in inference making.

Nevertheless, they are essential in making the necessary conceptual material

available for content operations to draw the appropriate inferences from it. The

remainder of this article is devoted to illustrate the workings of these cognitiveoperations in relation to popular international brand names. In so doing, we

shall highlight their functionality and their capacity to meet the specific needs

of the brand name creation process.

COGNITIVE OPERATIONS UNDERLYING THE SEMANTICMAKE-UP OF BRAND NAMES

The present approach to the semantics of branding takes the formal cognitive

operation of cueing as pivotal to the processes of brand creation and interpret-ation. Brand names act as cues for the activation of the pertinent lower level

content cognitive operations. In turn, such cognitive mechanisms guide and

constrain a number of inferential processes, which eventually endow the con-

ceptual fabric of the target product with relevant associations and felicitous




Downloadedfrom


5/20

connotations. In their cueing task, brand names are not alone. Other branding

and marketing strategies, including logos, mottos, and the use of color and

typography, among others, may also function as cues that trigger content

operations and that, as a result, endow the target product with furthersignificance. For the sake of exhaustiveness, however, this article will focus

exclusively on those cues of a verbal nature. When a customer sees or hears a

particular brand name, this linguistic cue may set off one or more of the fol-

lowing cognitive operations.

Comparison operations

The resemblance that can sometimes be found between two independent con-

ceptual domains licenses the use one of them (source domain) in order to talkand reason about the other (target domain). Through a previous abstraction

operation,4 speakers derive generic structure common to both domains, thus

licensing further comparisons between them.5 As shall be shown below, this

type of conceptual mapping has the positive side effect of enriching the se-

mantics of the target domain with relevant and compatible conceptual material

originally belonging to the source domain.

Comparison operations are at the basis of many international brands (e.g.

Puma, Jaguar, Camel, Apple, Blackberry, Red Bull, Nivea, Satellite, Sirius, Saturn,

etc.). We can distinguish two broad groups of comparison-based brands de-pending on whether an entity is compared to other inanimate objects or

whether it is connected with living entities. Let us start with the latter.

Some brands largely exploit the high-level mapping NON-LIVING ENTITIES

ARE LIVING ENTITIES. This conceptual metaphor, which is based on the Great

Chain of Being,6 helps us to deal with inanimate entities as if they were animate

beings. By virtue of this mapping, physical objects are endowed with the same

attributes and structural configuration that living beings possess. This generic

high-level mapping materializes itself in three more specific low-level meta-

phors: (i) ENTITIES ARE ANIMALS, (ii) ENTITIES ARE PLANTS, and (iii)ENTITIES ARE PEOPLE.

The first of these metaphors (i.e. ENTITIES ARE ANIMALS) can be illu-

strated by a brand like Puma (sporting goods), where all the relevant attributes

of the animal (e.g. speed, power, wildness, energy) are passed on to the

domain of sporting material. Similar examples are those of Camel (cigarettes),

Jaguar (cars), or Gorilla and Kangaroos (shoes).

The low-level metaphor ENTITIES ARE PLANTS underlies the understand-

ing of brands like Fleur(perfume) or Lotus (watches). Thus, Fleurfunctions as a

cue for consumers to make a comparison between the central attributes offlowers and some compatible and/or equivalent traits of perfumes (fresh,

pleasant smell, etc). Likewise, Lotus watches draw special connotations from

their comparison with the corresponding flower, which has spiritual, sacred,

and mysterious implications in many Asian cultures.




Downloadedfrom


6/20

The last of the low-level metaphors under consideration, ENTITIES ARE

PEOPLE, maps human attributes onto those of inanimate entities. In this

way, the latter are presented as bearing the same properties and possessing

abilities typically pertaining to human beings. Consider brands such as FordExplorer (jeep), Rover (car) and Pioneer (hi-fi, multimedia), which inherit the

adventurous and innovative traits of the type of people they name.

Brands involving a comparison operation can also make use of inanimate

source domains. Nivea (facial cream), Satellite (computer), Diamond (mobiles/

PDAs), and Saturn (car), to name just a few, fall within this category. By way of

illustration, consider how the brand Nivea, which originates in the Latin word

Nivis (meaning snow), may activate, for cultivated language users, a compari-

son operation between the source domain of snow and the target domain of a

facial cream.

As shown in figure 1, by virtue of this comparison, three relevant attributes

of snow are projected onto the domain of the facial cream known as Nivea,namely, its characteristic white color, its association with purity, and its dis-

tinctive coldness. The facial cream inherits these traits and further parametrizes

them to fit its own conceptual structure. Thus, the coldness of snow is miti-

gated into the notion of freshness, which is in turn metonymically made to

stand for one of its effects on the skin (i.e. low temperature has the ability to

make the skin terse and smooth). Other similar beauty products exploit the

same cognitive operations while using more explicit brand names, which are

likely to have a higher degree of effectiveness among less-educated customers

(e.g. Snow White Regenerating Age Cream, Snow Mask, Hazeline Snow MoisturizingCream, Tibet Snow Cream, etc.).

Comparison operations are a powerful branding tool in terms of the suggest-

iveness and novelty of the inferences they generate. Unlike domain reduction

and expansion operations (see below), which involve one single conceptual

Figure 1: Comparison, mitigation, and domain reduction operations under-lying the interpretation of Nivea




Downloadedfrom


7/20

frame, the source domains involved in comparison operations are independent

ofand external tothe conceptual domains of the target products. Because

of this, they contribute a wealth of new conceptual information, which comes

to enhance the descriptive and connotative potential of the brand.Comparison-based brand names are also useful in minimizing the risk of gen-

erating unfortunate associations. The branding professional will be able to

control and limit such a risk through a careful choice of the source domains

involved in the mapping. Thus, a simple lexical study and cultural survey on

the associations triggered by a particular source domain in a given target cul-

ture will largely minimize, if not fully rule out, the generation of negative

connotations by this type of comparison-based brand names.

Correlation operationsA different type of metaphorical mapping is the one that establishes a connec-

tion between two independent, but co-occurring domains of experience.

The cognitive operation underlying this type of metaphor is one of correlation.

As discussed in Lakoff and Johnson (1999), correlation operations are grounded

in experiential conflation, which consists in the mind envisaging two separate

domains as if they were the same on the basis of continued co-occurrence in

nature. Thus, we often see affection and emotions in terms of bodily tempera-

ture (e.g. She gave me a warm welcome; He was cold to me) probably because body

temperature is felt when people come close to us to show affection. Or we seequantity in terms of height (e.g. Prices are soaring; World stocks have plummeted

overnight) because levels rise and fall as quantity increases or decreases.

Some brands of beverages, such as Mountain Dew, Highland Spring, Hi-Spot,

Tree Top, Andina, Gold Peak, Lift, and Seven-Up, combine comparison and cor-

relation operations in their semantic configuration. Mountain Dew, for example,

has a complex source domain, which includes the concepts of mountain and

dew. It has already been shown how brands can be based on comparison op-

erations, which map the conceptual fabric of non-living entities (i.e. mountains,

dew) onto the target product (i.e. an energetic drink in the case under consid-eration), thus enriching the latter with relevant and compatible features of the

former (e.g. freshness, the energizing properties of nature, purity, etc.). As the

Mountain Dewexample makes clear, brand names serve as guides for the con-

ceptual activation of relevant pieces of world and cultural knowledge, and this

is inextricably linked to another formal operation known as selection.

Nevertheless, as pointed out by Ruiz de Mendoza (2010), the selection task

is cued, but not fully determined, by the linguistic expression. There are other

contextual factors that play a role, such as speakers beliefs and previous dis-

course tasks. In the example under scrutiny, a successful interpretation of Mountain Dew requires selecting the relevant information about mountains

and dew that may be applicable in the context of energetic drinks. This selec-

tion process will rule out the possibility of endowing the target product with

those traits of mountains and dew which are not semantically compatible with




Downloadedfrom


8/20

the context under consideration (e.g. mountains as geological features or agri-

cultural settings, dew as an atmospheric phenomenon, etc.).

What is special about Mountain Dew, however, is the combination of this

comparison operation with one of correlation, which establishes a projection between two different but naturally co-occurring dimensions of experience:

up/down positions (i.e. the verticality image-schema), on the one hand, and

the notions of happiness and health, on the other.

The semantic configuration of the noun mountain comprises the notion of

a verticality image-schema,7 whose upper end naturally correlates with vantage

positions and bigger quantities (i.e. MORE IS UP, as in Prices are soaring). The

verticality image-schema also underlies metaphors like BEING HEALTHY IS

BEING UP and HAPPINESS IS UP (e.g. Im in high spirits vs. Im feeling down

today, Im coming down with the flu vs. He was up and running in 3 days).

Correlations of this kind also have an experiential basis on the typical upright

position of healthy and happy people. Thus, if a brand like Mountain Dew is

contrasted with an imaginary brand such as Valley Dew, in which the noun

valley activates the lower end of the verticality image-schema, the axiologi-

cally positive connotations associated with high positions (i.e. bigger quanti-

ties, better qualities, health, and happiness) become all the more evident.

Mountain Dew conveys a sense of quality and excellence that is not present

in its hypothetical counterpart. Likewise, it activates more positive connota-

tions related to energetic and healthy environments. No wonder, therefore,

that so many brands of energetic drinks include nouns whose semantics arealso related to the upper end of the verticality image schema (see words like

tree, top, highland, peak, hi(gh), lift, and up in the aforementioned

brands).

Interestingly enough, the on-going discussion makes evident that cueing also

turns out to be a matter of conceptual consistency. Thus, for a piece of world

knowledge to be activated and thus selected as relevant for a given cognitive

task, it needs to be conceptually compatible with the cueing item (i.e. brand

name). Conceptual consistency is granted by means of yet another higher level

cognitive operation called conceptual integration, which consists in the combin-ation and/or merging of conceptual structure from any number of cued items.

Lower level cognitive operations often hinge on a previous integration of

diverse conceptual structures. As shown above, the correlation operation

underlying the interpretation of Mountain Dew is made possible thanks to the

combination of the domains of mountain and dew with the verticality

image-schema. Conceptual integration of this kind enhances the semantic

richness of the brand, as can be realized by comparing Mountain Dew with a

hypothetical brand such as UpDew, where the verticality image-schema is pre-

sented in a more literal fashion, and the resulting brand name is consequentlydeprived of the wealth of positive connotations brought about by its concep-

tual integration with the domain of mountain.

Together with the verticality-image schema, Johnson (1987) has put for-

ward a typology of over 20 different schemata. Just as the use of words




Downloadedfrom


9/20

whose semantics comprise the verticality image-schema can be used by brand

creators to design positive, energetic, optimistic names, words with other

image-schemas built into their semantics could be used to add a varied

range of connotations to the target product. Thus, the container image-schema,for instance, readily activates ideas of storage capacity, control, and protection from

outside forces (when an entity is within the borders of the container), or mystery

(since it is not possible to see what is inside it). Brands which may profit from

one or more of these straightforward implications are, among others, Xbox,

Pandora, Box.net, Nissan Cube, Power Macintosh G4 Cube, Aqua Sphere, Sphere

Holding, Intel, Volvo Wagon, and Fiat Qubo. In turn, the path image-schema calls

up notions of movement, travel, destination, and origin, as illustrated by brands

like BMW Roadster, Chrysler Horizon, Nissan X-Trail, and Nissan Pathfinder. The

force image-schema, to give just one more example, triggers associations withconcepts like strength, power, and speed. Words whose semantics are intrinsically

linked to the force image-schema are those of force, vector, arrow, lancia (Italian

for lance or spear), and push. Brand names containing these words will auto-

matically inherit the set of associations triggered by the force image-schema

(e.g. Lancia, Vector Graphics, Arrow Energy, Rowenta Air Force, and Push

Industries).

Image-schemas have an experiential basis, which makes them largely per-

vasive across cultures and languages. This special trait turns them into a valu-

able tool for brand creation, since the connotations of brand names based on

image-schematic correlations can be easily grasped by consumers from differ-

ent cultural backgrounds.

Domain expansion and reduction

These two cognitive operations are related to the two possible kinds of meto-

nymic relationship that can be established between a matrix (or main) domain

and the subdomains that it encompasses. Thus, if the source is a subdomain of

the target (matrix domain), we have a source-in-target metonymy; and if thetarget is a subdomain of the source (matrix domain), we find a target-in-source

metonymy (cf. Ruiz de Mendoza 2000). This distinction is not inconsequential,

since each of the choices correlates with a different type of cognitive operation

(i.e. domain expansion and domain reduction, respectively) and produces specific

communicative effects. Let us deal with each of them in turn.

Domain expansion operations involve the development of a subdomain

(source) into its matrix domain (target). As shown in Figure 2, this can be

illustrated by a source-in-target metonymy such as the one underlying the

expression The ham sandwich asked for the bill, where the ham sandwich (sub-domain) stands for the customer who has ordered it (matrix domain).

Domain expansion is an economical inference-generating cognitive oper-

ation which gives rise to an expanded conceptual domain. Its economy derives

from the fact that the speaker needs only provide limited information under




Downloadedfrom


10/20

the assumption that it will be developed by the hearer into the relevant con-

ceptual representation.

This type of domain expansion operation is often used to highlight one or

more special and/or unique attributes or ingredients of the target product.

Thus the subdomain that is used as the source of the projection, not only

names but also identifies the product uniquely by emphasizing its most rele-vant and/or representative characteristics. Coca-cola is a successful brand name

based on a cognitive operation of this kind. Its two main ingredients form a

compound, which names the beverage, at the same time that they project the

knowledge and connotations associated with them onto it. Bitter (Kas) would

be a similar example, although in this case the subdomain that is used as the

source of the projection corresponds to that of the taste of the beverage. Other

drinks, such as Boost or Kick, make use of yet a different subdomain, which

consists of the expected effects of the drink. In a similar way, other positive side

effects (e.g. Gaudium, a Latin word which stands for the notions of joy, delight,and happiness) or consequences (Placet, another Latin term which means ap-

proval, favorable opinion) are made to stand for the wine that originates them,

thus presenting the target product as something desirable.

Very well known brands may even make use of domain expansion oper-

ations based on acronyms, as in ck (Calvin Klein), CH (Carolina Herrera) or HP

(Hewlett Packard). In brands of this kind, the acronyms function as metonymic

access points to the fully fletched brand names, while at the same time adding

a touch of mystery, modernity, and/or technical and professional flavor that

their corresponding full-forms lack.Domain expansion operations constitute a safe, yet highly productive strat-

egy of brand name creation. Virtually any element of the conceptual fabric that

makes up the target product can be metonymically used to name it. Thus,

since the resulting brand name will always have its origin in a subdomain of

Figure 2: Domain expansion cognitive operation underlying the interpretationof the source-in-target metonymy The ham sandwich asked for his bill




Downloadedfrom


11/20

the target product, the risk of generating unrelated brands or infelicitous con-

notations is largely limited. Yet, a careful lexical choice in the naming of the

relevant subdomain can result in highly persuasive and unique brand names.

Rioja wine brands, for example, often exploit the subdomain of color fornaming purposes, taking advantage of the rich pool of color hyponyms that

exist in Spanish. Such color hyponyms are semantically richer than their

basic-level counterparts, and can therefore contribute extra conceptual mater-

ial to the brand name. As a matter of fact, they do so in spite of referring to

what is essentially a search attribute. Genol(from the Vina Ijalba Winery in the

Rioja D.O.C.), for instance, is a white wine whose name in based on a domain

expansion operation from the corresponding color subdomain (Genol-yellow)

to the target product (wine). It should be noted that Genol refers to a special

type of yellow traditionally used in the contexts of art and restoration of an-tiques. The choice of this hyponym is not arbitrary, since it is semantically

richer than the corresponding basic-level term amarillo (i.e. yellow). All the

relevant semantic content of this hyponym will thus be inherited by the wine

itself, which will benefit from the positive connotations derived from the in-

directly related domains of antiquity, art, and preservation of valuable objects.

Target-in-source metonymic expressions, like Mercedes Benz has decided to cut

down its production of luxury cars, illustrate the functioning of the converse op-

eration, known as domain reduction. In domain reduction the matrix domain

serves as a reference point for one of its subdomains, consequently reducingthe semantic scope of a conceptual representation. Thus, in the example under

consideration, Mercedes Benz does not refer to the whole company, but to the

people in charge of its management, as illustrated in Figure 3.

While domain expansion operations single out and focalize one or two rele-

vant elements of the conceptual fabric of a particular concept, domain reduc-

tion operations highlight the whole matrix domain. This type of operation is

Figure 3: Domain reduction operation underlying the interpretation of thetarget-in-source metonymy in Mercedes Benz has decided to cut down itsproduction of luxury cars




Downloadedfrom


12/20

useful when the target subdomain is too complex or elaborate to be named in

an economical way or when the matrix domain is relevant enough to be cap-

able of adding positive connotations, which would be lost by naming the spe-

cific subdomain alone.Brands that make use of the name or surname of the founder of the com-

pany generally involve a domain reduction process of the kind described

above. Thus, international brands such as Prada, Kellogs and Ferrari hinge

on this type of mental operation. It is often the case that these brands involve

a double-domain reduction operation, so that the name of the founder stands

for its company, and in turn, the company stands for its products, as shown in

Figure 4.

Double-domain reduction processes of this kind lead the customer to under-

stand the target product, not in isolation, but as part of a broader frame. As a

result, the final conceptualization of the product inherits relevant conceptual

material from the more general domains in which it is embedded. In this

fashion, Prada handbags, for example, will inherit notions characterizingtheir company such as those of luxury and selectiveness, as well as a sense of

heritage and family tradition from the matrix domain of the founder.

Domain reduction operations are economic for the speaker since it is the

addressees task to determine the relevant subdomain with the help of con-

textual and/or visual clues. Furthermore, such operations can have the added

advantage of offering a unified denomination for the various products of a

company, which may simplify their commercialization and bring down their

marketing costs.

Mitigation, strengthening, and parametrization operations

Utterances making a non-literal use of a scalar notion are likely to require

either a mitigation or a strengthening operation for their interpretation.

Figure 4: Double-domain reduction metonymy underlying the interpretationof the brand name Prada




Downloadedfrom


13/20

The understanding of hyperbole, for instance, requires the hearer to mitigate

(i.e. bring down to a point which is compatible with his perception of the state

of affairs) the speakers exaggerated formulation of a scalar feature. In this

fashion, a statement such as My suitcase weighs a ton will have to be mitigatedby the hearer to more realistic assertions such as My suitcase weighs too much or

My suitcase is too heavy for me. On the contrary, strengthening operations under-

lie the interpretation of understatements such as Repairing the car will take some

time. Consequently, the hearer needs to move the formulation up the scale to a

point that is compatible with his perception of the state of affairs in order to

make sense of the utterance (i.e. Repairing the car will take quite some time).

Brands whose semantic built-up involves either a mitigation or a strengthen-

ing mechanism will necessarily require the customer to carry out the converse

mental operation in order to reach their correct interpretations.

In addition, brands formed through mitigation or strengthening mechanisms

often involve a further operation of parametrization. As defined by Ruiz de

Mendoza and Santibanez (2003: 9), parametrization consists in adapting the

basic conceptual layout provided by the expression to other textual and con-

textual clues. This is one more cognitive operation to add to the list of

implicature-generating devices. If we consider a wine brand such as Imperial,

it is our knowledge that emperors used to live in a world of luxury, which

allows us to think of this wine as a high-quality product in terms of taste

and aroma. If the same brand name were to be used to refer to a horse or a

car instead, the parametrization operation would trigger different interpret-ations, probably along the lines of a pure breed, i.e. a competitive horse,

and of a luxurious and expensive car, respectively. Thus, the same brand

name (i.e. linguistic cue) will be parametrized differently depending on the

product that it names.

Let us now see each of these two opposed processes of brand creation and

interpretation in turn. Brands based on mitigation mechanisms often make use

of diminutives. Examples abound in present-day markets and include such

well-known products as Smarties, Kindle, Chevrolet, Chevy, Tablet, etc. The mo-

tivations behind the use of diminutives in brand creation are varied. Some ofthem obey the straightforward need or desire to highlight the reduced dimen-

sions and portability of a product (i.e. Kindle, Tablet).8 However, diminutives

are also connected with deeply rooted cultural beliefs and social expectations,

which can be fruitfully exploited in branding. As far back as the 1980s,

Sweetser (1984, 1987) already pointed out that not only representational

meaning, but also our pragmatic knowledge about social interaction could

be organized in terms of Propositional Idealized Cognitive Models (henceforth prop-

ositional ICMs).9 This type of knowledge organization structure does not neces-

sarily mirror reality faithfully. On the contrary, propositional ICMs represent theworld from a subjective, idealized perspective. Diminutives are often used to

draw attention to the speakers positive or negative attitudes about the refer-

ent. As argued by Ruiz de Mendoza (19951996: 164), this use of diminutives

can be traced back to our experiential knowledge about how people interact




Downloadedfrom


14/20

differently with objects depending on their size. Ruiz de Mendoza, therefore,

contends that we can ultimately relate the interpretation of diminutives to the

propositional ICM of size, which he formulates as follows:

ICM of size

(1) Entities range in size from very small ones to very large ones.

(2) A small entity is often more manageable than a bigger one.

(3) A small entity is often less harmful than a bigger one.

From (2) and (3) we derive, as corollaries, two opposed emotional reactions

in our understanding of small entities:

(4) We feel that small entities are likeable.

(5) We feel that small entities are unimportant.

Because small entities can presumably do us no harm, they can be easily

ignored. Nevertheless, for the same reason, they become attractive to us: as

humans we tend to develop feelings of fondness for other human or material

entities that are under our control and that do not represent a threat to us.

The affective meaning of many brands based on the use of diminutives is thus

derived from corollaries (4) and (5). Smarties, Chevrolet, and Chevy, to name just

a few examples, all partake of the attraction of small things. Smarties cease to be

a threat to cavities or a cause of overweight, because they are small and smallthings are not perceived as being harmful. Chevroletand Chevy benefit from our

appreciation of small things, which appear as lovable, charming, and desirable

in our collective mind, just in the same way as little pets or children can be

fetching and enthralling. Finally, Tabletand Kindle are made to appear as man-

ageable (point 2 of the ICM of size) and seductive (corollary 4).

As already pointed out, most brands based on the use of diminutives will

require the customer to carry out a mental operation of either strengthening

and/or parametrization in order to grasp the intended interpretation. By way

of illustration, let us consider the case of Chevrolet and Chevy, which will not be literally understood as referring to small cars, although their semantic in-

terpretation will nevertheless benefit from the associations triggered by the

aforementioned ICM of size.

The exploitation of the ICM of size in the creation of brand names can also be

effected through lexical choice. In Pizza Hut, for instance, the word hut,

referring to a small, warm and cosy wooden building, straightforwardly acti-

vates corollary 4 of the ICM of size. Again, Pizza Hut restaurants will not be

understood literally as small eateries, but they will inherit the semantic asso-

ciations of small things. Consequently, they will come through as likeable andcomfy. Since hut already codes the connection between smallness and com-

fort, there is no need for contextual parametrization in this case.

At the other end of the construction of scalar brands we find the workings of

strengthening mechanisms. Brands like Burger King, Best, Diamond, Kings, Nike,




Downloadedfrom


15/20

Zeus, Eros, Optima, Elite Book, among many others, exploit this cognitive oper-

ation in order to make their semantic impact more effective.

The strengthening strategy based on the use of references to either the world

of royalty (e.g. Burger King, Kings) or that of classical divinities (e.g. Nike, Zeus,Eros) is highly productive. In combination with an underlying comparison

operation, the target domain (i.e. the product) inherits the sense of utter

luxury, quantity, and quality that are traditionally associated with the

source domains of kings and Gods. The semantic output of such conceptual

projections is at a later step conveniently mitigated and parametrized by the

potential buyers as they carry out a contextually and culturally adequate in-

terpretation of the brand name. Thus, Burger King comes through as the most

tasty burger of its kind. Kings become the cigarettes that even a king would

choose, due to their quality and flavor. And Nike (Greek goddess of victory), to

name just another example, will be expected to lead its customers to optimum

sports performance.

Other lexical means that are instrumental in strengthening operations of this

sort include the use of superlatives (e.g. Best, Optima) and names describing

entities and categories with an intrinsic positive axiology based on their social-

ly valued nature (i.e. Elite Book, Diamond). It should be pointed out once more

that, since these brands make a non-literal use of scalar concepts, their final

interpretation will necessarily involve a mitigation operation. Best and Optima

will be brought down to more realistic assessments like very good quality or a

higher quality than the standard. Likewise, a piece of jewelry called Diamond isnot necessarily made of diamond, but it will be conveniently understood as

referring to the category of exclusive, expensive jewels of which diamonds are

a prototype. In a similar fashion, Elite Book is not a notebook aimed at an elite,

but it will be easily grasped as being a portable computer that has the necessary

features to comply with the requirements of highly demanding users.

In some other cases, strengthening mechanisms involve the use of aug-

mentatives, as illustrated by such brands as Big O Tyres, Max Factor, Big Mac,

MegaUpload, Mega-Vox, and SuperGlu, among others. The interpretation of aug-

mentatives, like that of diminutives, hinges on the ICM of size, whose originalformulation can be extended to account for large entities and the emotional

reactions triggered by them:

ICM of size

(1) Entities range in size from very small ones to very large ones.

[. . .]

(6) A large entity is more visually noticeable.

(7) A large entity looks sturdier and more resistant.From (6) and (7) we derive, as corollaries, two opposed emotional reactions

in our understanding of large entities:

(8) We feel large entities as being important and offering more quantity.




Downloadedfrom


16/20

(9) We feel large entities as being more reliable and/or offering a higher

quality.

Thus, the augmentative big in Big O Tyres activates the relevant elements of

the ICM of size so that the tires are perceived as more resistant and reliable.In turn, Big Mac activates point 6 of the ICM of size, which is conveniently

parametrized in order to produce the semantic output of a larger and higher

quality hamburger than the standard one.

As shown in the discussion above, both diminutives and augmentatives,

therefore, have the ability to create a positive attitude in the minds of potential

consumers. However, it should be noted that while diminutives suggest

likeability through minoration, augmentatives do so through impressiveness.

Likewise, mitigation and strengthening operations represent subtle and oppos-

ing ways of exploiting well-entrenched social conventions and conventionalemotional reactions. Mitigation strategies lead the potential customer to con-

sider the product as something desirable because of its harmless and easily

controllable nature. On the contrary, strengthening operations draw attention

to the dimensions and strengths of the product, which also turn it into some-

thing desirable due to its eye-catching and/or reliable nature.

Strengthening and mitigation operations represent two sides of the same

coin. By means of these operations, brand designers present reality in an aug-

mented or a diminished fashion, respectively. In turn, they leave consumers

the task of constructing a valid interpretation in order to make sense of themismatch between the real nature of the product and its purposefully distorted

representation provided by the corresponding brand name. The scope of their

interpretation, however, is conveniently constrained by the interaction of

these cognitive operations with the related ICM of size. Such idealized model

of our conventional reactions towards the perception of size automatically

shapes consumers interpretations to a large extent. Thus, when a consumer

finds a brand like Toyota Avalon (constructed through a strengthening oper-

ation), his reading of the brand name will activate those positive traits of large

entities as stated in the ICM of size. A large entity is more noticeable and solid,and therefore, more visually catching, and reliable. On the contrary, a brand

name built through a mitigation operation (e.g. Chevrolet), activates those cor-

ollaries of the ICM of size, which are related to small objects (i.e. they are

harmless, more manageable, and as a result, they are usually perceived as

endearing and charming). Against this, it could be argued that both large

and small entities could also have obvious intrinsic negative properties depend-

ing on the use to which they are put. Nevertheless, when interpreting a brand

name, consumers work under the general cooperative principle of communi-

cation (Grice 1975), which in the context of branding hinges on the assump-tion that the brand is aimed at highlighting the positive characteristics of the

product. Brands such as Chevroletand Toyota Avalon (i.e. car brands) which stem

from opposite mental operations (such as mitigation and strengthening, re-

spectively) both create a positive attitude on the potential consumer thanks




Downloadedfrom


17/20

to their interaction with the conventional knowledge about human perception

and emotional reaction to size as captured in the corresponding ICM.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHERRESEARCH

This article makes an initial foray into the unexplored territory of the concep-

tual foundations of brand names design. We have tackled the issue of how

the meaningful associations and connotations arising from a brand name can

be largely guided and constrained by a finite set of cognitive operations. In order

to support this hypothesis, we have offered a wealth of examples that show how

the successful semantics of well-known international brand names is based on

the underlying workings of conceptual mechanisms, such as those of compari-

son, correlation, domain expansion, domain reduction, mitigation, strengthening, and

parametrization. In so doing, we have also highlighted the specific traits of eachof those cognitive operations, as well as the particular benefits each of them

contributes to the process of brand creation. Due to space constraints, we have

limited our analysis to brand names. This type of analysis, however, can be

extended to other branding elements, including brand images, colors, and

sounds, whose semantic interpretation similarly hinges on conceptual mech-

anisms such as those considered in this article. This line of further research can

profit from previous studies on visual metaphor and metonymy (Ungerer 2000;

Forceville 2006), as well as from Klinks (2000) proposals on sound symbolism.Special attention should be paid to aspects of potential cognitive dissonance in

the final semantic configuration of brands arising from the different elements

that integrate them: linguistic (brand name, motto), visual (logo, color), and

acoustic (sounds, sound patterns), etc. In this connection, the contemporary

literature on conceptual interaction (Goossens 1995; Ruiz de Mendoza and Dez

2002) should also be revisited and elaborated to accommodate those instances

of multi-modal conceptual interplay that often characterize the construction of

powerful brands (e.g. a linguistic metaphor interacting with a visual meton-

ymy, a mitigation operation based on visual input interacting with linguisticand/or phonetic metaphors or metonymies, etc.).

FUNDING

Financial support for this research has been provided by the DGI, Spanish

Ministry of Education and Science, grant FFI2010-17610(FILO).

NOTES

1 Considerations on sound symbolism

can be traced back to ancient

Greek philosophy (Platos Cratylus)

and relevant 20th century linguists

such as Sapir (1929). It has been

defined as the direct linkage be-

tween sound and meaning (Hinton

et al. 1994).




Downloadedfrom


18/20

2 It goes without saying that specific

cultural factors also play a role in this

process. However, our general focus in

this article is on the more general fac-

tors, which are common across cultures

due to their grounding in shared cogni-

tive factors.

3 The Lexical Constructional Model (Mairal

and Ruiz de Mendoza 2009) arises

from the concern to account for the re-

lationship between syntax and all facets

of meaning construction, including

traditional implicature, illocutionary

meaning, and discourse phenomena.

The LCM bases its descriptions on thenotions of lexical and constructional

templates, which are the building

blocks of the model. For a more de-

tailed account on this model of lan-

guage representation, visit its webpage

at:

4 As pointed out by Ruiz de Mendoza

(2010), high-level formal abstraction op-

erations are a precondition for correl-

ation and comparison operations to bepossible at all. Through abstracting, we

derive generic structure common to the

source and target domains of a concep-

tual mapping, thus licensing further

comparisons and/or correlations be-

tween them. By way of illustration,

consider the correlation between quan-

tity (the target) and height (the source)

in a metaphorical expression such as

Prices are soaring. This type of correl-ation between height and quantity is

licensed by the abstraction of common

structure from multiple low-level scen-

arios in which we observe the rise and

fall of levels as more is added or taken

away.

5 Traditionally, metaphoric mappings

have been taken as cognitive oper-

ations (Lakoff 1987). Nevertheless, as

pointed out by Grady (1999), this isan oversimplification, since metaphor-

ical mappings eventually hinge on a

number of more basic cognitive oper-

ations, such as the comparison and

correlation operations dealt with in

this section.

6 The Great Chain of Being, which was first

put forward by Lakoff and Turner

(1989), is a cultural model which per-

vades our conception of the order of

things in the world and structures our

vision of the existing relations between

human beings and lower forms of ex-

istence. According to the basic Chain of

Being, there is a hierarchy among the

different kinds of being in the world.

Higher level beings possess all the prop-

erties of lower level beings together

with their inherent properties. For ex-

ample, animals show all the defining

features inherited from lower ranks

(e.g. plants), plus an inherent attribute,

namely, instinct. At the highest level

of the scale, we find human beings who

partake of all the properties of lower

levels plus rationality.

7 Image-schemas are one of the corner-

stone notions of the experientialistparadigm of Cognitive Linguistics

(Johnson 1987). This framework was

founded upon the rejection of the

mindbody dichotomy and stressing

the fundamentally embodied nature of

meaning, imagination, reason, and lan-

guage as a whole. Image-schemas are

conceived of as the pre-linguistic, dy-

namic, and highly schematic gestalts

arising directly from our bodily experi-ence, motor movement, object ma-

nipulation, and perceptual interaction

with the world that surrounds us.

8 The more sophisticated readers will

straightforwardly recognize the di-

minutive suffixes (i.e. let, -le) in these

brand names. Less learned consumers,

however, will also grasp the implica-

tions by analogy with more common

uses of these diminutives (e.g. piglet,booklet, hamlet, puddle, noodle). This

type of unconscious linguistic know-

ledge is often successfully exploited by

brand name creators.




Downloadedfrom


19/20

9 Propositional Idealized Cognitive Models

ICMs (Lakoff 1987) are very general,

idealized, culture-specific structures of

knowledge organization. The role of

social propositional ICMs and other

types of structured schemata (e.g.

frames, scenarios, scripts, etc.) in trigger-

ing expected emotional reactions and

inferences finds further support in psy-

chological studies (Fiske 1982).

REFERENCES

Bach, K. and R. M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic

Communication and Speech Acts. The MIT Press.

Bao, Y., A. T. Shao, and D. Rivers. 2008.

Creating new brand names: effects of rele-

vance, connotation, and pronunciation,

Journal of Advertising Research 48: 14862.

Fiske, S. T. 1982. Schema-triggered affect: ap-

plications to social perception in M. S. Clark

and S. T. Fiske (eds): Affect and Cognition.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 17190.

Forceville, C. 2006. Non-verbal and multimodal

metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas

for research in G. Kristiansen et al . (eds):

Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and

Future Perspectives. Mouton de Gruyter,

pp. 379402.

Goedertier, F. and G. Mast. 2003. Brand

equity: state of literature, Vlerick Leuven

Gent Management School. Vlerick Brand man-

agement centre (Report).

Goossens, L. 1995. Metaphtonymy: the inter-

action of metaphor and metonymy in expres-

sions for linguistic action in L. Goossens,

P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A. M. Simon-

Vanderbergen, and J. Vanparys (eds): By

Word of Mouth. Metaphor, Metonymy and

Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective. John

Benjamins, pp. 15974.

Grady, J. 1999. A typology of motivation for

conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resem-

blance in G. Steen and R. Gibbs (eds):

Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. John

Benjamins, pp. 79100.

Grice, P. 1975. Logic and conversation

in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds): Syntax and

Semantics, 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press.

Healey, M. 2008. What is Branding? Rotovision.

Hinton, L., H. Nichols, and J. Ohala. 1994.

Introduction: sound symbolic processes

in L. Hinton, H. Nichols, and J. Ohala (eds):

Sound Symbolism. Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind. Chicago

University Press.

Keller, K. L., S. E. Heckler, and M.

J. Houston. 1998. The effects of brand

name suggestiveness on advertising recall,

Journal of Marketing 62/1: 4857.

Klink, R. R. 2000. Creating brand names

with meaning: the use of sound symbolism,

Marketing Letters 11/1: 520.

Klink, R. R. 2003. Creating meaningful brands:

the relationship between brand name and

brand mark, Marketing Letters 14/3: 14357.

Kotler, P. and G. Amstrong. 2001. Principles of

Marketing. Prentice-Hall International.

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous

Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind.

UCP.

Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy In

The Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to

Western Thought. Basic Books.

Lakoff, G. and M. Turner. 1989. More Than Cool

Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor.

University of Chicago Press.

Mairal, U.R. and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza

Ibanez. 2009. Levels of description and ex-

planation in meaning construction in C.

S. Butler and J. Martn Arista (eds):

Deconstructing Constructions. John Benjamins,

pp. 15398.

Panther, K.-U. and L. Thornburg. 1998. A

cognitive approach to inferencing in conversa-

tion, Journal of Pragmatics 30: 75569.

Perez, H.L. and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza. 2002.

Grounding, semantic motivation, and concep-

tual interaction in indirect directive, Journal of

Pragmatics 34/3: 25984.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 2010. Metonymy and

cognitive operations in R. Benczes,

A. Barcelona, and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza

(eds): What is Metonymy? An Attempt at

Building a Consensus View on the Delimitation of

the Notion of Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics.

John Benjamins.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and O. Dez. 2002.

Patterns of conceptual interaction




Downloadedfrom


20/20

in R. Dirven and R. Porings (eds): Metaphor

and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast.

Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 489532.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and M. S. Pena

Cervel. 2005. Conceptual interaction, cogni-tive operations, and projection spaces

in F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza and M. S. Pena

Cervel (eds): Internal Dynamics and

Interdisciplinary Interaction. Mouton de

Gruyter, pp. 24983.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and L. Perez

Hernandez. 2001. Metonymy and the

Grammar: Motivation, Constraints, and

Interaction, Language and Communication 21/

4: 32157.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and F. Santibanez.2003. Content and formal cognitive operations

in construing meaning, Italian Journal of

Linguistics 15/2: 293320.

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. J. 19951996.

Some notes on the grammatical status of the

Spanish ito/-illo diminutives and their trans-

lation into English, Pragmalingustica 3/4:

15572.

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. J. 2000. The role

of mappings and domains in understanding

metonymy in A. Barcelona (ed.): Metaphorand Metonymy at the Crossroads. Mouton de

Gruyter, pp. 10932.

Sapir, E. 1929. A study in phonetic symbol-

ism, Journal of Experimental Psychology 12:

22539.

Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance,

Communication, and Cognition. Blackwell.

Srinivasan, S. S. and B. D. Till. 2002.

Evaluation of search, experience and credence

attributes: role of brand name and producttrial, Journal of Product and Brand Management

11/7: 41731.

Stern, B. B. 2006. What does brand mean?

Historical-analysis method and construct defin-

ition, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

34/2: 21623.

Sweetser, E. 1984. Semantic structure and

semantic change: a cognitive linguistic study

of modality, perception, speech acts and logical

relations, PhD dissertation, University of

California at Berkeley. University Microfilms.Sweetser, E. 1987. The definition of lie: An

examination of the folk theories underlying

a semantic prototype in D. Holland and

N. Quinn (eds): Cultural Models in Language

and Thought. CUP, pp. 4366.

Ungerer, F. 2000. Muted metaphors and the

activation of metonymies in adv

Documents

Applied Linguistics-2011-Hernández-369-88